Recently released documents, including full presentations, dealing with the training soldiers received at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia, reveal that our military is actually advocating the use of terrorism in an attempt to fight terrorism.

Let us first examine the definition of terrorism. The only problem is that there is no consensus either in academia or the international legal system as to what terrorism even is.

Clearly, this presents a problem when trying to deal with this subject, but since we will be dealing with the government of the United States of America in this article, we’ll have to settle with their definition.

United States government’s official definition of terrorism, as written in U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d) is as follows:

(d) Definitions

As used in this section—

(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;

(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;

(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and

(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—

(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—

(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or

(ii) as a transit point; and

(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—

(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;

(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or

(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.

One glaring problem here is the vague nature of the definition, which is hardly accidental. Just as the USA PATRIOT Act uses intentionally vague language to leave plenty of room for government misconduct, the definition of terrorism is left intentionally vague in order to be able to apply to anyone and everyone who the government sets their sights on.

However, this also allows us to include the military as “subnational groups or clandestine agents” and thus, as you will see, the methodology being taught to our soldiers at the Joint Forces Staff College is clearly advocating using terrorism to fight terrorism.

The materials obtained by Wired’s Danger Room and given to soldiers as a part of this course are just now emerging (and can be seen below), and the Department of Defense has supposedly canceled the class, but the perspectives revealed in these documents are nothing short of disturbing.

Among other things, the military actually taught soldiers that in order to protect America from Muslim terrorists, they must wage a “total war” against all of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims.

Indeed, one of the options promoted in Lieutenant Colonel Matthew A. Dooley’s presentation, “A Counter-Jihad Op Design Model” is “taking war to a civilian population wherever necessary.”

In Lt. Col. Dooley’s model, the claim is made that “due to the current common practices of Islamic terrorists” the Geneva Convention IV 1949 standards of armed conflicts and UN endorsements of it are “no longer relevant or respected globally.”

Dooley goes on to claim that this gives us the ability to attack civilian populations, citing “the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, [and] Nagasaki.”

Dooley indeed realizes how repugnant his position is, although he puts it lightly in writing, “Some actions offered for consideration here will be seen as not ‘politically correct’ in the eyes of many, both inside and outside the United States.”

Yes, Dooley, that is because you’re advocating terrorism and the outright slaughter of civilians in order to further your cause.

No matter how you wrap it up or frame it, you are promoting terrorism. Plain and simple.

One interesting tidbit included in one of the documents which many so-called conspiracy theorists will likely get a kick out of is the mention of transitioning the Muslim world “to 21st Century, representative, democratic, ‘globalist’ values.”

Disturbingly, Lt. Col. Dooley of the Army still holds his position at the Joint Forces Staff College pending an investigation.

Steven Williams, the Joint Forces Staff College spokesman, refused to discuss Dooley’s course or his status at the college.

When Williams was asked if Dooley was responsible for the material in the course, he responded with an even more disturbing answer, “I don’t know if I would classify him [Dooley] as responsible. That would be the commandant” of the school, Major General Joseph Ward.

If Williams was correct in his statement, this belief that terrorism should actually be considered as an option goes all the way to the upper ranks of the military.

Also quite troublesome is the fact that the damage has already been done.

The officers, including colonels, lieutenant colonels, captains, commanders, etc. who attended his course have already been moved up in the military ladder without being “deprogrammed,” as it were.

The most glaring problem – aside from advocating killing civilians – is that Dooley fallaciously conflates all of Islam with what is known as “Islamism,” or the fundamentalist and sometimes radical or militant interpretation of Islam.

Dooley and the other instructors who produced this laughably imbecilic and at times highly offensive material do this through a wide variety of methods both subtle and overt.

One of the most overt comes when Dooley reminds us that his model (which is “not the Official Policy of the United States Government or the DoD, nor are they in any part listed within the current NSS, NDS, QDR, QDDR or any official DoD document” except their training materials of course) promotes “a direct ideological and philosophical confrontation with Islam.”

“This confrontation will likely make anyone who sees the world in morally equivalent and/or religiously equivalent terms very uncomfortable,” he added.

I truly hope that no one looked over these materials before Dooley used them in his classes, and I also hope that at least one student questioned his positions.

Not only because he is clearly saying that we should consider using terrorism to fight terrorism, but also because these materials are so painfully moronic that I almost find it hard to believe that Dooley and the others were allowed to teach at all.

One glaring example is that he claims that the United States was founded under “a ‘judeo-christian’ [sic] ethic of reason and tolerance.”

He then goes on to claim that deconstructionist philosophies have instilled in us that “Islam and its ideology/politics of hate/violence are just as legitimate as Christianity, capitalism or representative democracy.”

Either Dooley is one of what I like to call “Christians In Name Only” (CINOs) or he simply forgot that whole “Thou shalt not kill” part of the Ten Commandments.

Maybe the irony of him claiming that deconstructionist philosophies and moral relativism are flawed while claiming that we should consider targeting civilians and invoking Christian philosophy is lost on him, but it certainly is not lost on me.

Dooley and others in the American intelligence, law enforcement and, of course, military communities – who Danger Room collectively refers to as “a small cabal of self-anointed counterterrorism experts” – have been attempting to shift the focus from “terrorists” to Islam itself.

Like other intellectually stunted individuals in government, Dooley claims, “We have now come to understand that there is no such thing as ‘moderate Islam,’” a claim which is wholly unfounded.

“It is therefore time for the United States to make our true intentions clear. This barbaric ideology will no longer be tolerated. Islam must change or we will facilitate its self-destruction,” Dooley concluded.

Once again, Dooley seems to miss just how ironic it is to call Islam a “barbaric ideology” while saying that the United States should seriously consider targeting civilian populations.

Dooley was not the only one spewing hateful rhetoric during his eight-week course.

Others included:

Shireen Burki, an “independent consultant/trainer and writer on subjects relating to as [sic] South Asia/Middle East; counter terrorism and strategic communication” (according to this bio) who called Obama “bin Laden’s dream candidate” and called Islam “an Imperialist/Conquering Religion.”

Stephen Coughlin, an individual who was fired from his position consulting the military Joint Staff who said that al Qaeda helped overthrow Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Qaddafi as part of a scheme to take over the world while mocking those who disagreed.

John Guandolo, a former FBI employee who told World Net Daily that Obama has fallen under the influence of Islamic extremists and attempted to justify the Crusades by saying they “were initiated after hundreds of years of Muslim incursion into Western lands.”

An investigation into how Dooley was able to present this course, which was “an official Defense Department-sanctioned course,” according to Danger Room, is to reportedly to be conducted by Major General Frederick Rudesheim, the results of which are due May 24.

These intellectually bankrupt ideas have already been placed in the minds of soldiers who were under the impression that they were being trained by an informed individual and assumedly integrated the information accordingly.

All we can do is hope that none of them took any of these insane ideas to heart.

Furthermore, we can only hope that these ideals are not shared by many, as if that was the case we would have a military replete with soldiers who believe terrorism could actually be the answer to terrorism.

Did I forget anything or miss any errors? Would you like to make me aware of a story or subject to cover? Or perhaps you want to bring your writing to a wider audience? Feel free to contact me at admin@EndtheLie.com with your concerns, tips, questions, original writings, insults or just about anything that may strike your fancy.

Please support our work and help us start to pay contributors by doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on Orion Talk Radio from 8 pm -- 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com

3 comments:

Anonymous
said...

It is always the unarmed civilians that suffer the most death in war. To keep war popular one must hide this fact and pretend that the soldiers are the ones facing danger. Our heroes! Give them a medal.

Dooley admits it is so in his historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. We know who is responsible for each of those atrocities. The my lai massacre in Vietnam, where again old villagers and children were slaughtered. Always it is so.

Agents can bend or suspend the law? Has not power been doing so from the beginning of time? This is not new. The knights in shinning armor are fairy tales. They were lawless thugs, butchers, rapists, and took what the wanted with the “authority” of the government. As with today’s “knights” in blue, they were not held accountable. The civilians were the victims even back then and still are.

During the Vietnam War we witnessed our endless flights of B-52s dropping huge streams of bombs on the Vietnamese people from heights of 30-40 thousand feet. How accurate were these drops? What would we say if another country had done that?

There's nothing ironic about this. Sadistic and twisted on the hand, very much so. And keep in mind that those attacks on civilians are now beginning to extend to the American populace. USans will soon find out how their Empire has treated others for the past couple hundred years and they're about to find out the hard way too. Karma is finally coming home to roost.

9/11 Questions

Activist Post is an Independent News blog for Activists challenging the abuses of the establishment.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the stories on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Paid advertising on Activist Post may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.

All opinions expressed by contributors to this site are theirs and theirs alone.